“As for the ball, it is quite a settled thing; and as soon as Nicholls has made white soup enough I shall send round my cards.” – Charles Bingley, Pride and Prejudice

Mr & Mrs Bennet sit down to supper. Notice the lavish bowl of fruit.

The sit-down supper served at the Netherfield Ball in Pride and Prejudice probably occurred around midnight. By that time, people would be famished after their physical exertions or from playing cards nonstop in the card room. They had most likely eaten their dinner between 3-5 p.m. (earlier in the country, and later in Town). Dinners consisted of between 5-16 dishes and could last several hours. The best families would serve up two courses, for a meal’s lavishness depended on the number of courses and dishes that were served. Dishes representing a range of foods, from soups to vegetables and meats, would be spread over the table in a pleasing arrangement and would be set down at the beginning of the meal.

Large Derby porcelain supper dish from Ruby Lane

It is conjectured that by the time the covered dishes arrived from the kitchen and the family and guests were seated, the food had turned cold. Diners would be confined to eating from the dishes placed closest to them. In the Bill of Fare from the Universal Cook, 1792 (Francis Collingwood and John Woollams) one can see the foods that were available in November.

Bill of Fare, November 1792

The evening meal, which also included a dessert course, lasted as long as two hours, leaving the diners sated. Suppers were therefore served quite late and were simple and small in comparison. Often called a “tea board”, this small repast was frequently served on a tray between 10-11 p.m. If more than one person was hungry, a cloth would be laid on a small table, not the dining table, and a limited assortment of cakes, tarts, biscuits, pastries, jellies, cheeses, cold meats, sandwiches, savories, salad, dessert, or local fruits – whatever was at hand – would be made available. (One can imagine how tired the servants must have been, rising early as they did.)

Mr. Darcy observes the Bennet family during supper and is accosted by Mr. Collins

Suppers served at private balls were an entirely different matter for they reflected on the splendor of the event. Balls generally began at 8-9 p.m. and the dancers sat down to a lavish spread at 11 p.m. or midnight. A gentleman accompanied his dance partner into the supper room, which makes one think that it would have been wise for a suitor who wished to further his acquaintance with a young lady to reserve a dance just before the meal.

Jane and Elizabeth at supper

Mr. Bingley most likely served a sumptuous supper on a magnificent table set with his finest china and silver. The food would consist of white soup, which during this time was made with veal stock, cream, and almonds; cold meats, such as chicken or sliced ham; poached salmon; glazed carrots and other seasonal vegetables; salads; fresh fruits;biscuits;dry cake (which meant unfrosted cake, like the pound cake recipe from the Delightful Repast at the bottom of this post); cheeses; short-bread cookies; pies; ice-cream; and trifles. One must not forget that during this period cockscombs and testicles were considered delicacies, and that bone marrow was routinely added to pies for richness. (Fancy Tripe or Trotters for Supper?)

Kitty and Lydia tippling, Netherfield Ball, P&P 2005

Drinks of tea, coffee, lemonade, white wine claret, and red wine (sweet madeira wine was especially popular) were served. Regency cups were filled with punch, negus (wine mixed with hot water, lemon and nougat); orgeat (made with a sweet syrup of orange and almonds); or ratafia (a sweet cordial flavored with fruit or almonds). Port was reserved for gentlemen, though I am not sure that they were allowed to imbibe this liquor in front of the ladies.

A footman holds a tray of drinks, Netherfield Ball, P&P 2005

A private midnight supper at Netherfield was a more splendid affair than the suppers served up at the weekly Wednesday night balls at Almack’s. These subcription dances coincided with the three months of the London social season. Alcohol was not served to discourage drunkenness among gentlemen, who were known to imbibe several bottles of wine per day, and only an assortment of thinly sliced stale bread (which was a day old), dry cakes, lemonade and tea were provided. Simpler balls given by hosts who were not as rich as Mr. Bingley might offer a little bit of hot supper consisting of six dishes, including salad, dessert, and fruit, and coffee, tea, lemonade and wine.

Trifle, The Delightful Repast

The links to the two recipes in this post were created expressly for us by Jean at The Delightful Repast. The pound cake (dry cake) recipe is one that even I am able to attempt with some success, and Jean’s solution of serving trifle in individual dessert dishes is sheer genius.

Thank you, Adelaide. I must admit that by the time I get my act together, half my meals are cold. So I would not be turned off by Regency customs. Though, well, I might balk at eating coxcombs and testicles.

Thanks for clarifying the food timeline. It took me quite some time, in reading novels from this time period, to understand why people were always eating “dinner” in the middle of the day! But that tradition does live on in more rural areas of the US (at least around here) where they call lunch (or the large meal of the day) “dinner” and dinner is “supper”.

Thanks for this delightful post! I am with Laura on this one. It took me quite a while to get this all straight when reading novels like Jane Austen’s. I married into one of those midwest farm families–what I grew up with as lunch is dinner and dinner to them is supper. My husband and I have often miscommunicated due to these two words. :)

Coxcombs, testicles, and bone marrow. Yum! When I watched the backstory on P&P 2003, it mentioned that there were no bathroom facilities for the ladies, but surely some of the older women would need to use the necessary. Right?

Yes, of course, Mary. An astute observation, given that balls lasted long. There were privies, which were rather gross in those days and which the gentry avoided. Chamber pots would have been provided. Afterwards, the maids would have taken care of their contents. Underdrawers were generally not worn this early in the 19th century, and when they were, they were two pieces tied together at the waist, leaving a convenient slit. Here is a link to an image: http://www.sewingcentral.com/images/smmm18104.jpg Thus, it was rather easy for a lady to take care of her business.

As one revolted Frenchman noted in his memoirs, when certain British gentlemen assembled to smoke and drink after dinner, they did not bother to leave the room to relieve themselves, choosing to use the chamber pots that were stashed in the corners of the diningroom in full view of everyone else.

Oh yum! So having 5000 a year does have its ups! Bingley’s menue sounds like those served at those fancy restaurants you pay 20dollars for an ice-cream. I suppose its all done at the hosts cost, or do the guests bring a little gift, like a bottle of wine as we do nowadays?

Liana, I am not sure. The rules of etiquette were strict. One greeted the host and hostess before entering the ballroom and upon leaving the house. One would also be obligated to promptly repay the hospitality with a return invitation.

I find the times of meals very interesting. Here in very rural Ireland where I live, dinner is a moveable feast. In the summer when the days are long and the farm work starts early – often at 7.00 most of our neighbours are up and about their work – dinner is at about 2:00 p.m. whereas in the winter when work starts later, dinner is often not served until 4:30 -5:00 p.m.
Supper is usually around nine, but it all depends on the haymaking and the weeks when the turf (peat) is being ‘saved’ from the bog.

Thank you, Vic, for another wonderful blog. I have a large shelf of books about Jane Austen and her times, but these days I tend to go to your blog first.
Now, what a about a blog on the Juvenilia – something which delights my heart!

Having the chamber pots in the same room you’re eating in sounds absolutely disgusting. You’d think that people who can afford such dresses, balls and meals, such elegant people, would be refined in every aspect of their life. Guess I was mistaken!

I’m French, and if we don’t have problems with supper/dinner, we can have problems between breakfast (“petit-déjeuner”) and lunch/midday meal (“déjeuner”). Most people, as we do in my family say “déjeuner” for “petit-déjeuner”, as well as for “déjeuner”, so sometimes it can be tricky. Just a funny fact I wanted to share :)

You cleared so many of my question and confusions. I was always wondering why in books they serve “cold meat” when I would very much want my food to be hot! Before, I thought supper was dinner and just had the same meaning but different names. I searched the dictionary and it was said that supper comes later than dinner and your timeline puts all confusion away.

I did not know that there where no undergarments for women before! That is very odd! And chamber pots in a ball with the servants throwing the contents! I think this all removes my wish of going back to the Regency Era!

Lex, the ladies would have removed themselves to a room reserved for those private activities. It was some of the men (most likely aristocratic) who displayed those gross habits. Servants, by the very nature of their jobs, would have been expected to clean up after their betters. Back in those days, attitudes towards hygiene and privacy were different.

Historical records are funny: just because one person observed this behavior and wrote about it did not mean that all exhibited the same patterns. Still, I found it curious that two sources mentioned that men, when together and without the presence of ladies, felt quite free to urinate into chamber pots. If you think about it, this still occurs today. It is the proximity of the activity to food and drink that is the huge turn-off.

Ick.

I believe either Rowlandson or Gillray drew a satiric print on the topic.

There was a little discussion on a Dutch Jane Austen forum, how all this eating was being done in the movies.

I watched P&P-1995 twice this year, with the PC.
The second time I took extra notice if anything was ever really being eaten by the actors.
Mr. Bennet / Benjamin Whitrow does indeed put something in his mouth once. I think it was a piece of cauliflower, it only lasts a split second.

For the rest they are all playing around with the food, like children who don’t like what they have on their dishes.

One of the forum-members sorted it out, and found this:
The food on the table is real food.
But it is being used 3 or 4 days in a row, to save money.
At the end of the day, photos are taken, the dishes covered with foil, refrigerated for the next day.
To cover unwanted smells on the 3th or 4th day, it would be be sprayed with a perfumed oil.

Mary Bennet/Lucy Briers is vegetarian.
It was her luck to have large portions of meat right in front of her all that time.

Thank you, Vic. I recently toured a Georgian country house in the Hudson River Valley in New York, and the “interpreter” mentioned that chamber pots would be brought out for the men to use in the dining room. But the impression of the backstory on P&P 2003 was that ladies didn’t use the facilities; they just had to hold it. Now, I found that difficult to believe, so thanks for the additional information. It does take some of the shine off living in the Regency Era, that and the lack of air conditioning keeps me in the 21st Century.

Mary, I do think that ladies chose to “hold it,” given the inconvenience of finding a place to eliminate in private while wearing a long delicate dress and petticoat. One would have to take off one’s gloves, ask someone to hold one’s fan, reticule, and shawl and “go to it”. The era was not barbaric – simply different – and accommodations would have been made for those whose sense of urgency needed accommodating.

When I think of the long lines at any kind of event or at the airport, women still have the short end of the stick. I imagine most women “sipped” their drinks rather than go through all of that rigamarole. Thanks again.

[…] Dressing for the Netherfield Ball, the second talked about the dances, and the third showcased the suppers that might have been served. This post discusses the music that was popular during Jane Austen’s era and that she personally […]

Join me on Facebook

Hello, my name is Vic and I live in Richmond, VA. I work in program and professional development at Virginia Commonwealth University, and I have adored Jane Austen almost all of my life. I am a proud lifetime member of the Jane Austen Society of North America. This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. I do not accept any form of cash advertising, sponsorship, or paid topic insertions. However, I do accept and keep books, DVDs and CDs to review.

Contributors to this blog include: Tony Grant and Christine Stewart.

If you would like to share a new site, or point out an error, please email me. (Yes, I am fallible. I'll own up to my mistakes and will make the corrections with a polite smile on my face.) Write me at

Irresistible Attraction

An online Regency novel in serialized form. Click here to read a new chapter of Irresistible Attraction each week, and follow the story of Amanda Sinclair and James Cavendish, the Earl of Downsley.

My Regency Tea Cup Review Ratings

Five Regency tea cups: The book is not perfect (few books are), but it was well worth its purchase and possesses many outstanding qualities that makes it stand head and shoulders above its counterparts.

Four Regency tea cups: This book offered many hours of pleasant reading, and I found I could not put it down.

Three Regency tea cups: Damned with faint praise. I put the book down often, but was intrigued enough to finish it. In this instance, the movie might be better.

Two Regency tea cups: This book required major changes that the author and editor should have fixed before publishing deadline.

One Regency tea cup: Oh dear. I do so feel for the trees that sacrificed their lives for this verbal garbage.